Science Under Assault

SCIENCE Under AssaultJohn Droz, jr. Physicist & Environmental Advocate 3/13/13

NOTE: SlideShare has had some issues with translating presentations properly. Hopefully they are temporary. If some slides are hard to read, or are missing graphics, please download the PDF version, which is much better quality.(Click the “Save” button above the window: it’s only a 12± MB file.) (Otherwise, use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate. This will allow you to proceed at your own pace.)

Science Under AssaultThe purpose of this presentation is to alert citizens about the Big Picture situation we have in the US today (and elsewhere). This is a complicatedmatter, so I have tried to strike a balance between being too technical and too simplified.The underlying message is that our technical policies should be based on real SCIENCE — not just on what lobbyists advocate. The problems are: 1) most people don’t know what genuine Science is, so 2) phony science is being advocated by self-serving special interests (promoting financial and/or political agendas).I wanted to select an opening image here that would give an adequate indication of the magnitude of the threat we are facing here. Believe me asdramatic as this picture seems, it is an understatement of what is happening to us.This will only be resolved when citizens take action. After getting more up-to-speed, they need to do some Critical Thinking about this.(Unfortunately, Critical Thinking has become somewhat of a lost art — and that has led to serious consequences to our society as a whole.)My expectation is that after citizens get more educated, that they will be in a much better position to express their more informed wishes to theirlocal, state and federal representatives.This is an expanded version (100± extra slides) of my live presentation on this subject that I gave to North Carolina legislators (2/6/13). A downside ofthis alternative is that the live presentation had commentary with each slide (see <<tinyurl.com/bjpnfmk>>). Since I don’t have the space to includeall of those comments, I made some notes on slides where the remarks were more necessary, and added them between the {...} brackets on the slides.Seeing it live is still the best — and I now have both 45 minute and 30 minute versions that I am willing to give to open-minded groups.Please see my brief “resume,” the copyright notice, disclaimer, and contact information on the last slide (I will be glad to respond to any questions orsuggestions). References and credits are on the six (6) slides prior to that one. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a new date on thefirst slide.] If you like what you see, please pass it on to other open-minded people, plus your federal, state and local representatives. — ENJOY! john droz,jr.

{I have given dozens of talks in some tenstates, on a variety of technical topics (windenergy, sea level rise, global warming, etc.) Inmy view this topic is the most importantpresentation I have ever put together, as thisis about the root of ALL those technical issues.When I started my research for thispresentation, I thought it would be easy tocover this topic in 30 minutes. However itdidn’t take long to come up with literallyhundreds of reports, articles, and books (likethis one here) on this subject. What I’ve triedto do is to distill this all down to the majorpoints, and to give it some organization.Quite frankly there are several aspects of thisissue that are a full talk in themselves.}

Part 1: Some Basics{My perspective on this situation is that of a physicist who has been actively working on energy and environmental issues for over thirty years, on my own dime.}

Scientists are Regular People That means there are: — some who are smart and others are not, — some who are reliable and others are not, — some who have courage and others do not, — some who have integrity and others do not, — some who have a sense of humor and others do not, etc...Who said —“Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl, is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves”?

Scientists are Regular People Albert Einstein Who would’ve thunk that while Al was working out theTheory of Relativity, that he’d be daydreaming about kissing girls?

Words are IMPORTANT! The difference betweenthe right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug. — Mark Twain

Note How the Promoters Keep Lookingfor the Most Persuasive Marketing Words... Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Anthropogenic Global Warming Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption {BTW, I’m going to use global warming in several examples. Am I saying that the global warming hypothesis is wrong? No. What I’m saying is that this matter is not yet scientifically resolved. At this point there is good evidence by credible people that it is true. On the other hand there is also good evidence by competent people that it’s not. In other words, the jury is still out.}

What is “Science”?{The clothes you are wearing, the food you eat today, the vehicle that you use, the building you are in,the lights in the ceiling, the computer you are using, etc. are all wonders of science. These are based on many generations of scientists using logic and deductive reasoning, carrying out observations andmeasurements, formulating and then testing hypotheses and theories. That’s what most people think of when asked to define science: things like theorems and equations. But that is not science.}

Science is nota collection of Theorems E = MC (Einsteins Theory of Relativity) F=G (Newton’s Law of Gravitation)

Science is a way of thinking, much more than it is abody of knowledge. Our species needs, and deserves, acitizenry with minds wide-awake, and with a basicunderstanding of how the world works. — Dr. Carl SaganScience has its weaknesses and it doesnt have astranglehold on the truth, but it has a way of approachingtechnical issues that is a closer approximation of truththan any other method we have. — Dr. Richard Muller (Physicist at Berkeley)

Science is a PROCESSThe term “Science” comes from the Latin word “scientia,” which means “knowledge”. The question is how do weobtain knowledge in technical areas? Over thousands of years we have worked out a methodology for discovering the technical truths of our universe. That is what the fields of Science are all about. Science is a Process.

{The understanding that Science is a Process is critically important for ourevaluating claims that are supposedly science based. The question always is: did they follow the process?}

the Scientific Process is an assessment that is: 1) Comprehensive, 2) Independent, 3) Transparent, 4) Empirical Technical, All Data Available Economic, & Objective Real World Environmental{Using these four criteria it will be very apparent whether you’re dealing with Science or snake oil. Wind energy (for example) has never been subjected to the Scientific Process.}

Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This: When a new idea (hypothesis) is proposed as a potential solution to a problem, it is up to the advocates to provide the scientific evidence that verifies its efficacy. (It’s not our obligation to disprove.)

{Science without the proper Process is not Science! Call it whatever you want — political science,pseudo-science, astrology, etc. but it is not true Science.}

Science is the enemy of con artists, scammers, and otherself-promoters.

Part 2: Science and Religion Text{Before we go into How Science is under assault, we need to understand Why. It may not be apparent, but it’s mostly about religion.}

Science Religion Facts Faith{The basic difference between traditional Science and conventional Religion is that Science is based on provable Facts, while Religion is based on Faith. Although there have been periodic spats between these two world views (when one trespassed onto the territory of the other), by-and-large Science and Religion have amicably co-existed for a long time. It has been a bit like a brother-sister relationship.}

{What we have now is that a new global religion is competing for the hearts and minds of worldwide citizens.It doesn’t take much research to see that this is the conclusion of most objective observers.}

Environmentalism:The New Religion,Freely Taught in Schools

New Science Religion Facts Faith{Traditional Religions are based on faith. Is that the case with this new religion, environmentalism? Welltell me how successful environmental organizations would be in raising money or getting citizens to get involved, if their pitch was: “Have faith in us! Take our word for it, global warming is real.”?}

NewScience ReligionFacts Faith {No, that wouldn’t get too many people excited. Who cares what some fringe environmentalists believe? So, what to do?}

Public Praises Science {It didn’t take too much thought for their PR people to come up with the answer: they needed to align themselves with something that the public DID believe in. The fact is that the public (rightly so) has a great deal of respect for Science.}

New Science Religion Facts Faith{So, contrary to all historical precedent, this new religion attempted to cross the wall and align itself with Science.The theory was that if Science endorsed their agenda, then citizens and governments would quickly fall in line.}

NewScience Religion Facts Faith {But then there was a new, BIG problem: when using genuine science, the results did notcome out to what the environmentalists wanted. (For example, using real science they were unable to come up with any meaningful amount of CO2 saved by using wind energy.)}

New NewScience ReligionFiction Faith {Their solution was to undermine the Scientific Process — in other words, change howtraditional Science worked. In effect it is to make up a “new” science. (I’ll explain this in a some later slides.) This is an ingenious solution for them, but horrifically bad for us.}

Science is the enemy of agenda promoters.

Their Primary Goal:Undermine the Authority of Science If the importance of Science is diminished, that will be a major obstacle that proponents of technical ideologies will not have to deal with.

New Science Religion Facts Faith{Mainstream environmental leaders hate having to deal with real Science, but are doing it as a necessary evil — sort of like having a root canal. Ultimately they would like to get genuine Science diminished to the point where it is no longer a formidable obstacle.What would be left, would be them having enough power that citizens and governments would simply do what they say, just because they said so. In other words, based on faith alone — just like with traditional religions.}

Green Secular Religion: Commentary“Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take facts into account.Like doomsday announcers you simply believe and preach. Western political elites live in asecularized world, a world without God. But religion (a matter of faith) does apparentlyremain a need of human mankind.“Although God is gone, the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of thisphenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is guilt (politically incorrectbehavior of humans), fear (doomsday), sin (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finallysalvation (brought about by the green movement NGOs). And if there is somehow asubstitute Jesus on top (as impersonated by Al Gore), secular religion gets rooted inpolitical communities trying to turn it into public policy all citizens have to adhere to.“It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted asa heretic, anti-human, narrow-minded, & as a lackey for the fossil fuel industry. Like intheocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climatechange was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefullyorchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness.”

What Happens When Facts Run Contrary to Beliefs?“Very few really seek knowledge in this world.“On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific opinions, by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to console themselves.“To really ask for the Truth is to open the door to the whirlwind — which may annihilate the questioner.” — Ann Rice

This has a well-known psychological explanation...Cognitive Dissonance is the tendency to resist informationthat we dont want to think about, because if we did it wouldconflict with an illusion we have bought into — and perhapsrequire us to act in ways that are out of our comfort zone. — Leon Festinger

An Explanation of the Prior “Cognitive Dissonance” SlideIn laymen’s terms, Cognitive Dissonance says that there appears to be a genetic predisposition thatafter we buy into something — i.e. get into a mindset — that it becomes extremely difficult for mostpeople to change their position.Interestingly this was first officially identified in a study of UFOs. In 1956 a woman claimed that shehad received a message from aliens that within the year the planet would be destroyed. Since she wasvery convincing, she soon had a group of followers who had bought into her story (had faith) — sothey sold everything they owned. But then her prediction didn’t come about.In an attempt to rationalize away their obvious mistake — yet not wanting to admit that they werewrong — most members of the cult then adopted a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead sparedthe planet for their sake. This is Cognitive Dissonance.We look back on those people and wonder how they could be so gullible — yet here we are willing tomake enormous financial and personal freedom sacrifices, based on predictions of the planet’sdestruction. We’re too smart to buy the aliens threat again, so this time the boogeyman is GlobalWarming. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it comes to mind.

The New Religion of Climate Change Part 3:Religious Exploitation of Cognitive Dissonance

War of World Views:Environmentalism vsthe Judeo-Christian Tradition This presentation is about Science, but it should also be apparent that this secular religion is a threat to traditional religions. Standards like the Ten Commandments are being replaced by such axioms as “the end justifies the means.”

If You Don’t Believe On Your Own, It Will Be Legislated For You

If You Don’t Believe On Your Own, It Will Be Legislated For You City Arrests Two Moms for Opposing ‘Smart Meters’ in Homes

As a LONG TIME Environmental Advocate, I can say that this “environmentalism” has simply gotten out of control...

This is the logical next stepfor this scandalous situation...

Part 3: Some Tricks to Try to Get Around Real Science{Since Science is the enemy of those promoting self-serving political and economic agendas, it can be helpful to be aware of the deceptions used to deceive trusting souls. Here are some of the more common ones…}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 1- Using Correlation to imply Causality.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation!

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation! {The number of Facebook users and the yield on Greek bonds, track pretty well — in other words there is strong correlation. But does either cause the other? How about the US highway fatality rate vs fresh lemons imported from Mexico? Great correlation, but does that mean causation? NO!}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation! {How about ice cream sales vs shark attacks? Or the quality of rock music vs US oil production? There are thousands of such examples where there is superior correlation, but zero causation. In these cases, though, citizens have the knowledge to understand that there is no causation.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation! {Ahhh, but what about this? Now we are outside the realm of most people’s expertise. The anti-science agenda promoters are fully aware of this deficiency, which is why they are bombarding us with false causation messages every day.} Does this prove that there is Global Warming?

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation! {Here is another example. This is a totally bogus claim, that has zero scientific proof behind it — but the message is that correlation does result from causation}.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation! {Of course if you look at this article a bit more closely, there are other hints that it is not an educated position.}.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Correlation Does NOT prove Causation!

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 2- Using Consensus to imply Correctness.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Basing a case on “consensus” is little more than an appeal to authority. Two Points — 1 - Consensus is not part of the Scientific Process, and 2 - Whether there is a real consensus is unknown.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Consensus is not part of the Scientific Process“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stoppedcold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. Itis a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear ‘theconsensus of scientists agrees on something or other,’ reach for your wallet, because you’rebeing had.”“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus isthe business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happensto be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to thereal world. Consensus is irrelevant: what is relevant is reproducible results. The greatestscientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” — Michael Crichton January 17, 2003: speech at the California Institute of Technology

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Consensus is not part of the Scientific ProcessA scientist objected to my use of the prior quote saying: “Crichton was not a research scientist.”That is correct, but such a comment is indicative of how our communication is going downhill. Onedisputes the veracity of a statement by providing contrary evidence — not by disparaging the source.Such thinking also indicates a rather elitist perspective: that the only people we should listen to are thosewho have a degree in the topic. Balderdash.The fact is that whether Crichton had multiple Science PhDs or zero is irrelevant, as that is not anecessary criteria for expressing the truth. Our society recognizes that extraordinary insights can comefrom anyone — thus the expression "from the mouths of babes."Einstein made several remarks against consensus, so would he be more acceptable? “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would suffice.” and “Few people are capable of expressing opinions that differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Consensus is not part of the Scientific Process Up until recently, essentially the entire medical establishment believed that ulcers were primarily caused by stress… Every Medical Doctor in the world, Every Medical PhD Researcher in the world, Every Medical Hospital in the world, Every Medical School in the world, Every Medical Textbook in the world, Every Medical Journal in the world, Every Pharmaceutical Company in the world, etc. THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... The parallels with the global warming situation are obvious.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Consensus is not part of the Scientific Process

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Whether there is a Real Consensus is Unknown A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 members of the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA): of the respondents — — 99% believe climate is changing. — Only 32% agreed with the statement that: “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” — Only 26% of them attributed global warming primarily to: “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Whether there is a Real Consensus is Unknown {Note how they subtly (and dishonestly) changed it from being “97% of scientists” to “97% of scientific experts”. Those are not the same thing. And the question posed asked their opinion, where is should have asked: “Are you aware of scientific proof that…”.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Whether there is a Real Consensus is Unknown

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Whether there is a Real Consensus is Unknown {Here are the actualsurvey figures from oneof the most cited sources. Over 10,000 scientists Note: were sent the survey. 75÷77 = 97%, but (That is not even 1% of scientists worldwide.) 75÷10,257 ≠ 97% It was poorly worded (remember: words are important!) and that might explain why less than a third even bothered to respond.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Whether there is a Real Consensus is Unknown{Read the referenced study to see the actual breakdown.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 3-Substituting Intuition for the Science Process.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... So Why Did This Happen? Up until recently, essentially the entire medical establishment believed that ulcers were primarily caused by stress… Every Medical Doctor in the world, Every Medical PhD Researcher in the world, Every Medical Hospital in the world, Every Medical School in the world, Every Medical Textbook in the world, Every Medical Journal in the world, Every Pharmaceutical Company in the world, etc. THEY WERE ALL WRONG! {This happened as tens of thousands of scientist and experts relied on intuition, and didn’t bother to scientifically verify their intuitive beliefs.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Intuition is NOT science! Intuition is an invaluable way to come up with new ideas — but it can’t stop there. New ideas (hypothesis) must then be subjected to scientific verification. To stop with what seems to be intuitively obvious, results in FALSE conclusions like: the earth is the center of the solar system, ulcers are caused by stress, wind energy is free, clean & green, etc.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... More evidence why we need to do more than follow our intuition... “Science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather it requires that students unlearn their instincts, shedding false beliefs… When students learn new scientific theories (that conflict with earlier naive theories), our findings suggest that the naive theories are suppressed by scientific theories, not supplanted by them.”

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 4- Using “Peer Review” to imply Accuracy.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... What is Peer Review? 1 - "Peer Review" is applicable in one primary situation: when a scientist is proposing a new hypothesis. 2 - "Peer Review" is simply the opinions of selected other scientists about the acceptability of a proposed hypothesis. 3 - Even if all these selected other scientists agree with the hypothesis, that does not constitute scientific proof that the hypothesis is accurate.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Peer-Review” is an Abused Credential

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Peer-Review” is an Abused Credential Give some thought to the substantial implications of this...

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Peer-Review” is an Abused Credential

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Peer-Review” is an Abused Credential “Peer Review” is an arbitrary academic anachronism that is more about politics than science. One of the key assumptions behind the peer review concept is that consensus equals accuracy. The error in that is that science is NOT about consensus. Our history is replete with numerous examples of where consensus was totally wrong. “The real mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” —Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Peer-Review” is an Abused Credential {Once you have a better understanding of what peer-review really is, this conclusion won’t be as stunning as it initially appears.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 5- Using Scientists to imply Scientificness.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Is every priest (minister, rabbi) a holy person? Is every lawyer a law-abiding citizen? Is every scientist a promoter of science?

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... NO!

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... There are tens of thousands of scientists who are off the reservation! This happens due to reasons like: 1) financial incentives (e.g. grants), 2) concerns for job security, 3) required for career advancement, 4) the influence of peer pressure, 5) interest in promoting a personal agenda, etc.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... When a Priest violates his profession — he is defrocked.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... When a Lawyer violates his profession — he is disbarred.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... When a Scientist violates his profession — he is funded by advocacy groups. {When scientists act contrary to their profession, there is no real procedure to cull out the bad apples. (IMO they should have their degrees revoked.) Instead, what typically happens, is that they get hired or funded by special advocacy groups who want to take advantage of their science “credibility” to promote their self-serving agenda.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... A Report by Scientists ≠ a Scientific Report! Just because a scientist makes an assertion, does not make that claim scientific. What makes a claim scientific is that it has followed the Scientific Process.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Some Indications of Unprofessional Scientists By only telling us just one side of the story it is easy for fallen-away scientists to make it seem like there is universal support (consensus) for their position.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary...

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {There is overwhelming evidence that there are many scientists who are not fulfilling their professional obligations as scientists.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... That’s why this type of claim is inappropriate. (See next slide.)

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... There Is NO SUCH THING as “BAD SCIENCE”! {One of the things I hear a lot is “bad science.” To me that phrase is like scraping fingernails across the chalkboard. IMO there is no such thing as bad science — as Science is a process that has been proven to be successful. What there is are numerous examples where the process has been perverted, aborted, distorted, etc. These are all examples of bad scientists — not bad Science. This is an extremely important word distinction! Part of the assault on Science is to undermine its credibility. If citizens can be hoodwinked into believing there is good and bad Science, that goes a long way towards their questioning the legitimacy and applicability of Science.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 6- Using Computer Models to imply Reality.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality On the surface, a computer model holds three main enticements. The first is that it represents a shortcut. Make no mistake about it: we are addicted to the quick way. For instance, we don’t like having to take the time and effort to do real world assessments — so, we just model it, and assume that it’s equivalent. It often is not. The second big attraction is that computer models give us the illusion that we are able to predict the future. Who wouldn’t like do that? But can we really equate the extraordinarily complex situation of world climate many years from now, by just a series of “ones” and “zeros” (e.g. as in next slide)? Unfortunately we are losing our ability to discern between reality and a mirage. The third killer selling point for computer models is that marketers can imbed hidden sales messages in what appears to be a science based package. Put another way, computer models are comprised of unidentified assumptions — many of them unproven. But we, the marks, know none of this. This situation reminds me of someone being given a new workshop tool as a birthday gift. Something that they have been able to live without for 30 years all of a sudden becomes a key element in every project they have. Thats where we are now with computer models: significant over use.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality 10110111100110110101001 01010000100001010001000 10100010001000110111100 10101000111010101000101 11001001010010101010001 ? 01001100011011110101010 00101010100011101010101 = 00101000101000100110001 00111010010011110010110 01001010101000010101010 00101010010010101010001 11101010101000000101010 10111000010101010100101 00010101000101000110110 01000110100101000101010 00101101001101001000...

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality {The fact is that scientists do NOT have a thorough understanding of all the relative physics of climate. For instance, this Woods Hole graph indicates that scientists are uncertain about some 20% of carbon sinks — which is an enormously large amount. With this degree of uncertainty, of such a significant item today, how can a highly accurate computer model be constructed for 50 years from now?}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality {Here is part of an interesting study about some of the people writing global warming computer models. These people acknowledge that they have difficulty in segregating the real world from their digital fantasy.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality {This article (continued on next page) gives us a cautionary tale, that is amazing that we have yet to see the connection with. It is about the fact that a primary reason that there was crash in the whole world’s economy, was due to failed computer models. Yet these are the exact same things we are now trusting, as we intend to spend tens of trillions of dollars to prevent global warming! Pay attention to the parallels...}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Computer Models Are Not Reality

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 7- Using Selective Data to imply Actuality.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Seeing the WHOLE Picture is Critical. Let’s Look at Some Graphs of Greenland Ice Core Temperatures. {One of the four Scientific Process elements is to be comprehensive. Using selective data violates that. This is a powerful trick as the results can easily be manipulated so that they seem to be legitimate to the uncritical person. The next several slides is an example that should make it quite clear. Let’s look at Greenland ice core samples, and see how changing the time period can give remarkably different impressions.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #1: Last 600± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: {Note: Since it takes years for ice to become suitable for ice coring, this is the latest data available.} Conclusion: Things are Getting BAD

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #2: Last 1,200± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: Conclusion: Oh. Maybe it’s not really so bad.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #3: Last 5,000± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: Conclusion: Wow. We’re really in GOOD shape.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #4: Last 10,000± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: {So let’s say that some people are running an environmental group that wants to substantially influence public policy. They know that that a tried-and-true tactic to get support is to make people afraid. So let’s go backwards and you tell me which graph is the one they will be showing on their website, articles, and presentations...} Conclusion: We’re actually at a LOW point.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #3: Last 5,000± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: Will this make people afraid? Not Likely.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #2: Last 1,200± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: Will this make people afraid? Doubt it.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Graph #1: Last 600± Years Greenland Ice Core Temperatures: {This should do the trick! Note that there is nothing false about this graph, just that it doesn’t show the whole picture. That’s why comprehensive is part of the Scientific Process. Will this make people afraid? Probably so!

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Seeing the WHOLE picture is Critical. Let’s Look at Sample Weather Stories. {One more example: how weather events are reported. Every opportunity is taken to make an artificial connection with a US weather event and global warming — even though you already know that correlation doesn’t prove causation}.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... These types of stories are constantly on US mainstream media:

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Yet these types of stories get essentially no US mainstream media coverage...

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 8- Using PNS to imply better Science.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {Here is a trick you’ve probably never heard of — yet it is one of the most troublesome threats to Science there is. PNS is Post Normal Science. The bottom line is that for the first time ever, there are those who are trying to introduce a value system into the Science process. It shouldn’t take too much thought before we’ll ask “whose values”? You can be sure that they won’t be asking you and me.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Post Normal Science” is bogus science. Post-Normal Science is a concept attempting to characterize a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where: "facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent." {Think about it: every one of these items are problematic! For instance, who is the authority that says “the stakes are high”? Who is the official arbiter that dictates “decisions are urgent”? None of this has anything to do with Science, and all of it has to do with giving up your freedoms.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Post Normal Science” is bogus science.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... “Post Normal Science” is bogus science. {Consider this recent situation. It should give us pause as to what happens when “values” are artificially injected into the Science Process. This degreed person, who proudly says he is against the death penalty (for something like the Sandy Hook murders), then says that global warming deniers should be executed! Another point to consider is that this person is a music professor — so what gives him the credentials to assess the scientific merits of the global warming hypothesis? This is really all about eliminating heretics against his religion.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 9- Using PP to imply Reasonableness.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {The Precautionary Principle is particularly problematic, as on the surface it almost seems reasonable. That, of course, is a key component to any con job: to get you to put your guard down. Note the overlap with PNS, in that this is another attempt to inject subjective values into Science.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... The Problems with Precaution: A Principle Without Principle “The Precautionary Principle allows regulatory agencies to shape and influence policy decisions that have little or no scientific substantiation.”

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 10-Disguising “Normative Science” as Real Science.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... This is EXTREMELY pertinent...

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 11-Using Engineering to imply Science.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... How Do Science & Engineering Inter-relate? Scientists & Engineers Must Work Closely Together {It may come as a surprise to many people, but engineers are not scientists.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... A Simplified Summary — Science: Proves principles Engineering: Applies Proven principles

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... This implies a proper sequence Science —> Engineering

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... What Happens When Engineering gets ahead of Science?

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... When We Are Presented With Technical Options (like Wind Energy)... The appropriate initial question is: “SHOULD We Do This?” (i.e. does it make sense to do this?) This looks at problems from a SCIENCE perspective.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... When We Are Presented With Technical Options (like Wind Energy)... The anti-science proponents have changed the initial question to: “CAN We Do This?” This looks at problems from an ENGINEERING perspective.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... It’s the job of engineers to take on challenges, so of course their answer is always: “Sure, We Can Do It!” This change from a SCIENCE perspective to an ENGINEERING one, is a subtle but profound alteration. The focus is then almost entirely on implementation, so almost no one really cares about the net cost or sensibility. [Good examples of the foolishness of this approach are the ethanol debacle, and wind energy.]

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Do Engineers Have an Obligation to Speak Out Against Poor Technical Policies ? {I would say yes — but not many are!}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... IMO it comes down to this: Do engineers sign up for the money available to enable unscientific policies? or Do engineers stand up and object to foolish wasting of money and resources?

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... There are two matters at stake: Integrity of the engineering profession. and The success of our country.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 12-Using Probabilities to imply Certainty.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {This is a typical news story. Since the article is derived from an official government agency report, it is taken as gospel by those who diet on soundbites. The next slide is the actual report, which puts things somewhat differently.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... What does this Government Agency Statement Really Mean? It is equivalent to the Government saying that they have 90%+ confidence that the Carolina Panthers will have a winning season by 2100.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Purposefully Confusing Possibility with Probability A frequent trick employed by wind promoters is to make wildly specious claims under the auspices of it “being possible.” For instance, the NC Sierra Club states that: “North Carolina’s shallow-water wind resources are the best on the Atlantic coast, with 58 GW of available capacity — which amounts to 130% of the state’s energy demands.” If I said that “you might get an anonymous cashiers check in the mail for $100,000,” you would have enough knowledge of that situation to immediately classify it into the realm of unreality, and not give my statement any credibility. With the wind energy situation, the promoters know that you do NOT have sufficient knowledge to make any such assessment, so they are free to make claims that make no practical sense whatsoever — comfortable with the fact that you will not know that.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Using Fear to Distort the Probabilities

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 13-Using Technical Terms to imply Competence.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {Another variation of the “baffle us with BS” trick, is to make claims sound more impressive than they are by injecting a slew of unnecessary technical gibberish.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 14-Reversing Responsibility to imply Obligation.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This: When a new idea (hypothesis) is proposed as a potential solution to a problem, it is up to the advocates to PROVE its efficacy (not the other way around).

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... What happens after the CO2 proponents have been shown several major flaws in their hypothesis? They often answer that if we don’t like their hypothesis, then we should come up with a better one. {That type of answer is a dead giveaway that the speaker has very little understanding of how real science works.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... 15-Claiming the mantle of Science — yet being anything but.

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... These two conflicting reports were found at the same internet source (at different times). Some people will conclude that scientists don’t know what they are doing...

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {Here is a typical article where I had first-hand familiarity. The anti-science forces falsely made the H819 situation as being Science (supposedly them) vs those with economic interests: real estate developers. There were dozens of these puff pieces, almost all making the same false claim about Science.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {I know more than a bit about this as I was the editor of the primary report disputing a NC state agency’s sea level rise study, and I’ve never been a real estate developer. This report is not from me anyway, but is actually the responses of some thirty oceanographers and other sea level experts to the state agency document. The words “real estate” or “economics” are not mentioned even once in the thirty four pages of this report. This was ALL about the fact that the state agency study did not adhere to the Science Process — not economics!}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {Here it says that we are audacious to attempt to tell “actual scientists” what to think & do. Well guilty as charged: we ARE telling these degreed people that they need to follow the Scientific Process. In the state agency report they did nothing even remotely like that, and that was the fundamental problem, NOT economics!}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {An inaccurate “peer-review” claim is made by this political (not scientific) organization.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... {When political science forces falsely claim to be the real thing, this just further erodes the public confidence in genuine science — which is their goal.}

Some Tricks to fool the trusting and the unwary... The reason that these agenda promoters use ALL these tactics is that they know that Real Science is the biggest threat they face!

Part 4: Some Environmental Hypocrisies{If the canons of the mainstream environmental religion are really all about protecting the environment, then how does one explain these apparent hypocrisies?}

Assessing the Legitimacy of a Religion - IVerifying the legitimacy of purported scientific claims is relatively straightforward: see whether the claims have been subjected to a proper scientific analysis. (In other words, have they followed the Scientific Process?)But what about religious claims?Since these are based on faith rather than facts, how does one verify tenets of faith?Admittedly this is a trickier matter, but there is one good methodology for assessing the legitimacy offaith-based assertions — see whether the proponents’ actions are consistent with their words.Hypocrisies will exist where there are serious disparities.When a series of hypocrisies can be identified (and they go unacknowledged and unresolved), thatwould be a good indication that the religion is a sham.The next several slides point out examples of hypocrisies with the mainstream environmentalismmovement. You decide for yourself what this says about their religion.

Hypocrisy Example #1They say:Their number one objectiveis to protect and preserve the environment.

Their actions:Yet they aggressively support “solutions”(like wind energy)that cause enormous environmental damage. {So are they genuinely concerned about the environment — or using that as a guise to promote a bigger political agenda?}

{I know of no mainstream environmental organization that has adequately reported this horrific situation — but here are the stark conclusions from an English investigation…---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The next slide has another example of significant environmental destruction — that mainstream environmental groups are accepting. “Environmentalists” actions with the USF&WS are damning.}

Sierra Club PublicationPromotes Industry Over Wildlife

Hypocrisy Example #2They say:We need to takeimmediate, meaningful global warming actionto prevent colossal catastrophes from happening.

Their actions:Yet they aggressively support “solutions”(like wind energy) — which have no scientificallyproven consequential global warming benefits. {It would seem that the more serious the danger, that the more sure we would want to be that advocated solutions really work — i.e. make a consequential difference. But not so here!}

Hypocrisy Example #3They say:If we don’t takeimmediate, consequential global warming actionmany millions of lives will be lost.

Their actions:Many millions of lives are already annually lost topreventable causes. Yet no mainstream environmentalgroup is advocating spending anything near the globalwarming $ on something that is 100% real, today. {If they are really about saving lives — why aren’t they more aggressively supporting immediate solutions, instead of funding possible fixes to speculative future problems?}

Sample Annual Global Deaths per the World Health Organization1-Non-Communicable Diseases = 33,500,0002-Communicable Diseases = 18,300,0003-Injuries = 5,200,000[Note 1: Extreme Weather Events = 20,000][Note 2: Vit. A, Iron, Zinc Deficiency = 1,400,000] 1-Cardiovascular, Cancer, Respiratory, etc. 2-Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, Diarrhea, Malaria, etc. 3-Vehicular, Civilian Violence, War, etc.

Sample ofAnnual Deathsdue to risks(per the WHO):

The 2012 Copenhagen Consensus Project’sconclusions about global threats.(Note that “climatechange” items are only 12th & 17th in importance.)

Hypocrisy Example #4They say:If we don’t takeimmediate, consequential global warming actionmany millions of lives will be lost.

Their actions:Yet these same proponentsare actively supporting population control. {How can they really be about saving lives — while they support reducing the population?}

Next on the Environment Agenda: Population Control!

Hypocrisy Example #5They say:The US needs to have energy independence.

Their actions:Yet many of these same proponentsare actively supporting globalization. {How can we be an active participant in the global economy — yet be independent?}

Hypocrisy Example #6They say:The US needs to have energy independence.

Their actions:Yet environmental groups actively resist measures thatwould insure US energy independence —even after it’sconcluded that they don’t cause consequential harm. {How can the US be energy independent —when homegrown sources of reliable, affordable energy are prohibited?}

Hypocrisy Example #7They say:We must apply the Precautionary Principleto important technical issues(e.g. the global warming hypothesis).

Their actions:Yet these same proponents never applythe Precautionary Principleto their proposed “solutions” (e.g. wind energy). {There are hundreds of reports and studies (from independent competent experts),that have concluded that wind energy is harmful to humans and wildlife.}

Hypocrisy Example #8They say:We must follow the advice of the “experts”(e.g. regarding the global warming hypothesis).

Their actions:Yet these same proponentsdisregard what the experts (e.g. physicists) sayregarding what they don’t like (e.g. nuclear power). {So do we follow the advice of the experts — or do we make our own faith-based decisions?}

Hypocrisy Example #9They say:The IPCC is a collectionof many of the best scientists in the world,and are the high priests of the environmental religion.

Their actions:Yet these same apostlesdismiss what the IPCC sayswhen they don’t like it (e.g. Sea Level Rise). {So is the IPCC composed of experts beyond questioning — or not?}

Hypocrisy Example #10They say:“Peer Review” is the ultimate science authority(e.g. regarding the global warming hypothesis).

Their actions:Yet these same proponents disregard “Peer Review”when they don’t like what is says. {So is “Peer Review” the gold standard — or just a convenient reference when if supports their beliefs?}

{When is the last time an environmental organization cited peer-review sources like this?}

Assessing the Legitimacy of a Religion - IIAt the beginning of this section we said that we’d assess the legitimacy of the environmentalism faith-based assertions — by seeing whether their actions are consistent with their dogma.Hypocrisies exist where there are major disparities.Ten examples of serious hypocrisies were identified — and they all pertain to main tenets of theenvironmental religion.Since these all go unacknowledged and unresolved at this time, many people would interpret that asa good indication that the religion is a sham.So we’ve shown that the environmentalism religion: 1) is not based on real science, and 2) is not even consistent with their professed beliefs.The inescapable conclusion is that mainstream environmentalism is actually about some undeclaredideology. Since exploring that is beyond the scope of this presentation, it will be left up to the readerto decide what those actually are. One opinion can be found in the video: Grinding America Down.

Part 5: Assuring A Compliant Populace{With all this undermining of one of our society’s main pillars, why aren’t more people aware of this andspeaking out about it? Well citizens aren’t going to complain about something, if they can’t understand it.}

¿No Comprende?{Why is the prior slide true? It’s largely because our adult population can’t process these more complex matters. I’m not ordinarily into conspiracy theories, but I believe that this is no accident.}

Wait a minute — something feels wrong here! “Shut up, you moron! Do as you’ve been told. It’s for your own good!” {Less educated people tend to ask fewer — and less insightful — questions.They will just go along. Put another way, the vaccine for ignorance is education.}

Avoid Teaching Critical Thinking. {IMO this is a core educational problem. There is no more important skillthat our students need to be taught or encouraged to develop. It’s not happening.}

Doonesburyweighs in... — Continued on Next Slide —

What Is Critical Thinking?A thorough, open-minded, logical effort to examine a claim, in the light of applicable evidence. One of the key ingredients of true science — and critical thinking — is SKEPTICISM

{Mr. Cerf is one of the founders of Google, so knows of what he speaks. He says here that he couldn’t imagine amore important skill to teach than Critical Thinking. He goes on to say that the point of being a Critical Thinker is that we would be more thoughtful about what information we accept, and then process and use.But of course that’s the point: those that want to get their political way, don’t want a populace that is thoughtful about information they accept, process and use! Instead our children are being thoroughly propagandized from a very young age...}

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth... Give me four years to teach the childrenand the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” — Lenin

{Nothing is different in highereducation, as the objective remains the same: avoid producing thinking citizens. As it says here, these newlyeducated adults now don’t havethe ability to segregate fact fromopinion. I don’t know about you, but I find that really scary.}

Diminish the Importance and Quality of Science Education.{My focus here is on what is happening to Science, and there is absolutely no doubt that Science has been particularly devalued in our education system.}

“I think people do not understand that science is a way of approaching problems, rather than a body of knowledge. As a result, adults (with less science education) are often unable to assess claims and counter claims as they make choices on critical issues that face them as citizens…”

{Despite the US spending more per student than almost anyone else, we continue to do poorly compared to other developed countries.}

{How is this possible? Why is it acceptable?}

So What?One study concluded that this deficiency, would mean (over 20 years) a $41 trillion loss in the US’s GDP.

Diminish the Quality of Education, using Grade Inﬂation. {You might ask: why would parents put up with a diminishing education product for their children?To answer that logical question we need to step back and see the Big Picture of what is going on.}

{These people who are intent on taking over, are no fools. In this case, as they reduced the quality of education, they simultaneously introduced grade inflation! The net effect was to keep parents from objecting, as who would complain when their child is getting better grades? This graph is representative of what has happened across the board.}Undergraduate Grade Point Average (GPA) at UNC Chapel Hill

{This also sends a really bad message to students:that they only have to show up and do cursory work to be highly rewarded. In other words this is sowing the seeds of an entitlement mentality.What are the consequencesof millions of US studentsbecoming adults who then apply that perspective to their job, their family, and their community? Not good for them or us!}

{Please read this carefully…}

{More of the same bad message.}

{So do students who want to get better grades work harder? Not likely, as a standard they are being taught is: the end justifies the means!An entirely expected result is that when they don’t get the grade they believe they’re entitled to, they frequently cheat. And it’s more often is sciences, and much more than ever before (see next slide).}

Everyone is Cheating: College Studentsand their Professors {Students and professors are both cheating... When do we as a society say enough is enough?}

Just when we thought the prior slide hadfound the bottom of the barrel, there is this... Have we had enough yet?

Guess What this Results in?

{Even more adverse consequences...}

Some Other GoodAcademic Reform Ideas.

Use the Internet to spread Misinformation{We have always had to deal with the forces of greed and evil, what’s the difference now? There never has been a time where misinformation could be sent to hundreds of thousands of people, for free, in a minute.}

We are being warned about the consequences of our education policies —1 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology — in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.2 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.3 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. — Dr. Carl Sagan

{This study is very revealing. On the surface you might ask: why don’t facts make a difference? Well, to a fact-based society they would! This is more proof that we are moving away from a Science- based society, to one that is faith-based. We and our students are being brain-washed to accept the secular religion of environmentalism — with it’s own value system — as the basis for our actions. This important study demonstrates how pervasive this has become in our society.}Exposed to Facts,the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly

Part 6:Some Solutions

Deliver Us From EvilWhen we are confronted with questions of Science, we often haveneither the tenacity nor intellectual rigor to properly do ourhomework.In truth, in the realm of politics, quite often expedience is the orderof the day, and obfuscation, misdirection and white lies are theimplementing tools. —a Canadian newspaper op-ed

A Superior Summary of the Situation (part 1)“Since the waning years of the 20th century, politics has increasinglyintruded on science. Scientific insights achieved through systematic,objective collection of data, and empirical testing, have been subjected topolitical screening.“Pioneering research findings that do not conform to political orthodoxyhave too often been considered ‘politically incorrect’ and even attacked andcensored.“This trend has been particularly apparent in the fields of health andenvironmental science, where the stakes are very large. Respected scholarshave been vilified when their research findings called into question theassumptions of ‘conventional wisdom’ and the agendas of powerful specialinterests. — continued on next slide —

A Superior Summary of the Situation (part 2)“In the public arena, alarmist rhetoric over complicated issues has tended todrown out calm, rational discourse. Highly significant findings of greatimport have been ignored. Politicians and government regulators havemade public policy decisions based upon false or fragmentary information.As a result, a host of unscientific, intrusive and counter-productivegovernment policies have become commonplace, including takings ofprivate property, bans of harmless substances, unwarranted liability courtawards, byzantine bureaucratic controls, and regulatory measures thatendanger economic growth as well as health and the environment.” — The Independent Institute

Legislators should:1 - Carefully study ScienceUnderAssault.Info.2 - Do what they can to see that the entire education system: a) aggressively teaches Critical Thinking, and b) promotes and prioritizes hard sciences.3 - As a major step to defuse partisan politics (and get better results), see that all technical policies are based on genuine science.4 - Support companies that are developing science-based energy and environmental solutions.

The United States can be a Leader in:1) Eighteenth century ideas like horse transportation and wind energy (buggy whip manufacturing, blacksmith and windmill jobs) OR2) State-of-the-art, Scientifically Sound energy solutions (like geothermal energy, Small Modular Reactors, etc.)

A Sample Business that should be supported

THANK YOUfor Giving This MatterSome Critical Thought!

References (for main data, quotes, etc.): #1 —Slide 4: WhistleBlower Book (www.wnd.com/2010/02/124000/)Slide 6: Einstein Quote (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html)Slide 8: Mark Twain Quote (www.goodreads.com/quotes/4957-the-difference-between-the-right-word-and-the-almost-right)Slide 12: Carl Sagan Quote (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan124576.html)Slide 12: Richard Muller Quote (whileyouweresleeping.tumblr.com/post/3567104477/science-has-its-weaknesses-and-it-doesnt-have-a)Slide 14: Science is a Process, Not Just a Bunch of Facts (tinyurl.com/b4e2ntk) & Book (tinyurl.com/a99ml6q)Slide 15: Science is a Process (tinyurl.com/375no6) & Ted talk (tinyurl.com/c29t9y9)Slide 18: Science without method (www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/scientific-method)Slide 22: Environmentalism as Religion (New Atlantis) (www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion)Slide 23: Environmentalism as Religion (WSJ) (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186343555831322.html)Slide 24: Environmentalism as Religion (Ostrowski) (www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ostrowski-john1.html)Slide 25: Environmentalism New Religion Taught in Schools (tinyurl.com/74o99e7)Slide 26: Environmentalism as New World Religion (www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002&page=0)Slide 29: Public Praises Science (www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/)Slide 33: Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions? (tinyurl.com/9qofk3k)Slide 36: Religion Without God (www.christopherengland.com/2011/05/religion-without-god.html)Slide 37: Ann Rice Quote (www.annerice.com/Bookshelf-VampireLestat.html)Slides 38 & 39: Cognitive Dissonance (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)Slide 40: Religious Exploitation of Cognitive Dissonance (tinyurl.com/bgfq3zq)Slide 41: Environmentalism and Religion: Substitutes or Complements? (tinyurl.com/banyxu8)Slide 42: Judeo-Christian Tradition vs Environmentalists (www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/070917)Slide 43: Government By and For Activists (www.themoralliberal.com/2013/01/06/government-of-by-and-for-activists/)Slide 44: Two Mom’s arrested for Resisting “Smart Meters” (answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130125104515AAHtX1X)Slide 45: Environmental Laws - NETLSlide’s 53 & 54: Sandy’s Strength (www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/30/1152598/-Scientific-American-Sandy-Strength-Due-To-Global-Warming)Slide 55: Superstition (www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/extreme_weather_superstition_Tcj8NYKEQSAj5hd1ht1zgI)Slide 57: Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Authority (www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/) — Continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.): #2 —Slide 58: Crichton Quote on Consensus (s8int.com/crichton.html)Slide 59: Einstein Quote on Consensus (www.acceler8or.com/2011/10/against-consensus/)Slide 60: History of Ulcer Treatment (www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm) and (tinyurl.com/aendon8)Slide 61: Climate Science and Stomach Bugs (www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/01/of-climate-science-and-stomach-bugs)Slide 62: Consensus Science - the Rise of a Scientific Elite (www.icr.org/article/consensus-science-rise-scientific-elite/) also: When To Doubt a Scientific Consensus (american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus)Slide 63: APEGGA Survey (www.apega.ca/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf)Slide 64: 97% of Scientists Say AGW is Real (tinyurl.com/aqthsar)Slide 65: 97% Cooked Stats (opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/)Slide 66: Climate Science Consensus based on a Myth (www.fcpp.org/blog/climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth/)Slide 67: About that 97% Number (tinyurl.com/bmj9my9). For a larger list, see (tinyurl.com/Clim97pct)Slide 68: Peer-Reviewed Survey finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis (tinyurl.com/amfwwzq)Slide 71: Intuition as a Justification for Ignorance (homebirthdebate.blogspot.com/2008/01/intuition-as-justification-for.html)Slide 72: Why We Don’t Believe in Science (tinyurl.com/883usyw)Slide 75: Bias in the Peer Review Process (tinyurl.com/c4mmpms) & Classic Peer Review - an Empty Gun (tinyurl.com/ccxoaxd)Slide 76: Peer review: a Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/99/4/178.full)Slide 77: Peer Review of New Science (claesjohnson.blogspot.com.br/2013/02/how-to-handle-peer-review-of-new-science.html)Slide 78: Rex Murphy re Peer Review (tinyurl.com/3qemmu9)Slide 79: Horton re Peer Review (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(editor)#Peer_review)Slide 80: Most Published Research Findings False (www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)Slide 89: Confirmation Bias - Nickerson (psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf)Slide 90: Confirmation Bias - Jackson (www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=confirmation.php)Slide 91: Watchdog Website Shut Down (tinyurl.com/baodqp6)Slide 92: Bad Science (times247.com/articles/global-warming-bad-science-to-poor-policy)Slide 96: Computer Models: Models of Illusion (www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/Models_of_Illusion.pdf)Slide 97: The Missing Carbon Sink - Woods Hole (tinyurl.com/286emcq) and The Carbon Cycle (www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle?topic=49505)Slide 98: Seductive Simulations (sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf)Slide 99: UN Global Warming Forecasts Performing Badly (tinyurl.com/a4gz83o) — Continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.): #3 —Slides 100 & 101: Computer Models (tinyurl.com/akboba5); also Computer Models Incapable of Modeling Climate (tinyurl.com/apqqzv3)Slide 103: Statisticians Can Prove Anything (news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/20/statisticians-can-prove-almost-anything-a-new-study-finds/)Slides 105-111: Greenland Ice Core Graphs (www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553)Slide 113: Record US Heat Wave (www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/record-heat-wave-pushes-u-s-belief-in-climate-change-up-to-70-.html)Slide 114: Russian Cold Temperatures (rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/)Slide 116: PNS History (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science)Slide 117: Post-Normal Science in a German Landscape (sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.12.pdf)Slide 118: PNS - A Contradiction in Terms (www.goldendolphin.com/WSarticles/Postmodern%20science.pdf) Also re PNS: Climate Change and the Death of Science (buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/) Also re PNS: Special Issue on Post Normal Climate Science - Curry (judithcurry.com/2012/07/24/special-issue-on-postnormal-climate-science/)Slide 119: Death Penalty for AGW Deniers (politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/professor-global-warming-deniers-should-be-executed/)Slide 120: Wingspread- Precautionary Principle (www.sehn.org/precaution.html)Slide 122: A Principle Without Principle (www.american.com/archive/2011/may/the-problems-with-precaution-a-principle-without-principle)Slide 122: Quote [From: the Fallacy of the Precautionary Principle in Ontario...] (tinyurl.com/ajh24xv)Slide 123: Challenging the Precautionary Principle (www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm)Slides 125 & 126: Normative Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_science) & (tinyurl.com/b4mqzuo)Slide 139: NOAA SLR Article (www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20121209/NEWS04/312090026/NOAA-sees-sea-level-rise-up-6-6-feet-by-2100)Slide 140: NOAA SLR Report (researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/sealevels.aspx)Slide 142: Sierra Club re NC Offshore Wind (nc2.sierraclub.org/nosidebar/offshore-wind-basics)Slide 143: Fear & Statistics (reason.com/archives/2011/04/12/fear-itself)Slide 145: Hermetic Jargon (www.cspo.org/library/perspectives/?item=Tennekes_February06)Slide 146: Medical Jargon (tinyurl.com/bx5kwq5) & Hi-tech Lingo is Confusing (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3054210.stm)Slide 147: Loquaciousness (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness)Slide 152: NC GA Tackles SLR (clclt.com/theclog/archives/2012/06/29/general-assembly-tries-to-tackle-sea-level-rise-by-outlawing-facts)Slide 153: Earthworms and Global Warming (tinyurl.com/cx43uj3) and (tinyurl.com/bplsqj5)Slide 154: NC Rejects SLR Predictions (in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/environment-usa-northcarolina-idINL2E8I3DW320120703)Slide 155: A Scientific Critique of the NC CRC SLR Report, Part 1 (tinyurl.com/b2ntl4d), Part 2 (tinyurl.com/b9lsst9)Slide 156: Flat Earthers Deny SLR (pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012/06/04/even-as-flat-earthers-deny-sea-level-rise-the-land-disappears/) — Continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.): #4 —Slide 157: Union of Concerned Scientists re NC SLR (www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2012/NC-sea-level.html)Slide 164: China Pollution on a Disastrous Scale (tinyurl.com/4u2xjst). USF&WS and Environmental Hypocrisy (tinyurl.com/a3yhuux)Slide 165: Bats Worth Billions to Agriculture at Risk (www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2743)Slide 167: (www.mojavedesertblog.com/2013/02/sierra-club-publication-promotes.html)Slide 171: Global Death Rates (www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf)Slide 172: World Health Organization Death Rates (reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf)Slide 173: Copenhagen Consensus (www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Files/Filer/CC12%20papers/Outcome_Document_Updated_1105.pdf)Slide 176: Breaking a Long Silence on Population Control (tinyurl.com/b4vaky6)Slide 177: Next on the Environment Agenda: Population Control! (tinyurl.com/ahlwo38) also: The Sierra Club on Population Control (www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201205/climate-change-family-planning-159.aspx)Slide 179: Globalization Could Be An Environmentalist’s Best Friend (adammjohnston.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/globalizationenviroment/)Slide 181: Science Has Been Politicized (brian-therightperspective.blogspot.com/2011/01/greenpeace-founder-todays.html)Slide 184: Environmentalists Oppose Pipeline (tinyurl.com/beujzfs) & Keystone does not harm environment (tinyurl.com/amyph4o)Slide 193: Peer Review Studies Disputing the AGW Hypothesis (www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)Slide 196: Ignorance is Bliss When It Comes To Challenging Social Issues (www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/11/ignorance.aspx)Slide 198: How Education Is Dumbing You Down (www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-education-is-deliberately-dumbing-you-dowm/blog-263461/)Slide 203: Critical Thinking - several sources, e.g. (www.criticalthinking.org/about/mission.cfm)Slide 204: Vinton Cerf on Critical Thinking (curiosity.discovery.com/question/misinformation-internet-thinking-critically)Slide 205: Sneaking Environmental Propaganda into Public Schools (tinyurl.com/bhzltxj)Slide 206: Pupils Now Being Fed Propaganda (www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=11866)Slide 207: Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation’s Classrooms (tinyurl.com/cb95flu)Slide 208: Greenpeace - Give me a Child (tinyurl.com/bfuvxdn); Lenin quote (www.gordonstate.edu/pt_faculty/jmallory/index_files/page0487.htm) also: Climate Change Propaganda Taught in School as Scientific Fact (tinyurl.com/ap4lqgd) also: Climate Change Propaganda Has No Place In British Schools (tinyurl.com/asnvoq5) also: Have You Heard About the U.N. Propaganda Now In Our K-12 Schools? (tinyurl.com/bz7f4xs)Slide 209: College Students not learning Critical Thinking (www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html) — Continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.): #5 —Slide 211: The Woeful State of Science Instruction (toped.svefoundation.org/2011/10/25/woeful-state-of-science-instruction/)Slide 212: US Students Still Lag Behind Foreign Peers… (www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/us-students-still-lag-beh_n_1695516.html)Slide 213: Physics First (tinyurl.com/a9jj2dv) & Best Education In The World:… (tinyurl.com/c2k96xc)Slide 215: Science Literacy of World Countries (nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_403.asp)Slide 216: America Falls Behind in Education Race (www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/18283/america-falls-behind-in-the-education-race) also: The Single Goalpost Theory - George Will (www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110127/columnist/101271040?p=all&tc=pgall)Slide 218: UNC Grade Inflation (www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/1999-00/R2000EPCGrdInfl.PDF)Slide 219: To Stop Grade Inflation… (chronicle.com/article/article-content/132415/) also: Stop Grade Inflation Initiative (www.endgradeinflation.org/)Slide 220: Teacher Suspended for Giving Low Grades (thestir.cafemom.com/teen/138607/school_suspends_teacher_for_giving)Slide 221: More Teachers Not Grading Homework (wcfcourier.com/lifestyles/article_ab5b3e63-3f01-53cb-a4a5-718db9adf9cf.html)Slide 222: Shocking Cheating Stats (www.examiner.com/article/cheating-shocking-stats-on-academic-cheating)Slide 222: Academic Dishonesty - a Crisis (www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/507/essentials/p58.htm)Slide 223: Cheating Stats (www.stanford.edu/class/engr110/cheating.html)Slide 224: Students and Professors are both cheating (www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/everyone-is-cheating-college-students-and-their-professors.html)Slide 225: Profs give good Grades for Money (abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8646265)Slide 226: Misconduct Accounts for Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications (www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028)Slide 227: The Creativity Crisis (www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html)Slide 228: Twelve Academic Reforms (www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2782)Slide 230: Web of Deception (www.amazon.com/Web-Deception-Misinformation-Anne-Mintz/dp/0910965609)Slide 231: The Morass of Misinformation On the Net (abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=97336&page=1#.UNCkCI6L8ac)Slide 232: Social Media: Propaganda Tool (mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/64928-social-media-the-new-propaganda-tool.html)Slide 232: Propaganda Technology and Communication (www.ehow.com/facts_5950770_propaganda-technology-communication.html)Slide 233: Carl Sagan quotes (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/carl_sagan.html)Slide 234: Exposed to Facts... (news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/exposed-to-facts-the-misinformed-believe-lies-more-strongly/)Slide 237 & 238: Superior Summary by Independent Institute (www.independent.org/research/cohae/)Slide 240: Public, Leaders Must Fight Misinformation about Science (tinyurl.com/b6mf84h)Slide 242: PRISM Reactor (tinyurl.com/apcjpkc); also Transatomic Power (transatomicpower.com/products.php) — Graphic Credits are on next page — © john droz, jr.

Credits (for graphics, photos & videos) —Slide 1: Tidal Wave (forensicarchaeology.org/about/mass-disasters)Slide 1(alt): Titanic (ultimatetitanic.com/the-sinking/#.UPmA446L-lV)Slides 5, 20, 46, 160, 195, 235: Science Logo (www.conejo.k12.ca.us/whs/Departments/Science.aspx)Slide 17: Science Lab (teacherweb.craven.k12.nc.us/TPE/specials/images/7A6FFA731C634321AE6594D79F5B9D2F.jpg)Slide 19: Snake Oil Salesman - John Terry cartoons (www.windtoons.com/)Slide 49: Correlation: Dilbert (dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-11-28/)Slide 49: Correlation: Equation (hotmath.com/hotmath_help/topics/correlation-and-causal-relation.html)Slide 50: Correlation: Lemons vs Fatalities (blogs.iq.harvard.edu/sss/archives/2009/04/correlation_is.shtml)Slide 50: Correlation: Facebook vs Greek Bonds (tinyurl.com/a7bh3le)Slide 51: Correlation: Ice Cream Sales vs Shark Attacks (onlineinsider.tumblr.com/post/7351752849/correlation-is-not-causation)Slide 51: Correlation: Rock Music vs Oil Production (www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/hubbert-peak-theory-of-oil-rock/)Slide 52: Arctic Sea Ice (www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm)Slide 96: Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory (scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics/)Slide 158: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing (jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-banks-part-iii.html)Slide 199: Lemmings (www.greeningofgavin.com/2012/07/over-cliff-without-lemming.html)Slides 201 & 202: Doonesbury re Critical Thinking (matt.bo.lt/critical_thinking)Slide 203: Rodin “The Thinker” (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/The_Thinker_Musee_Rodin.jpg)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Worth reading: Cargo Cult Science - Dr. Richard Feynman (calteches.library.caltech.edu/3043/1/CargoCult.pdf)Re Offshore wind: NC Offshore Wind Coalition (www.ncoffshorewind.org/whyosw.html) & Britains Offshore Wind Jobs (tinyurl.com/79nbxxg) & Wind Energy Jobs Not Blowing Anyone Away (tinyurl.com/awuzn6g) & New Jersey Offshore Wind Study (tinyurl.com/7ypdu99)Other unidentified graphics & photos are mine. Other unattributed observations are the result of private research. © john droz, jr.

John Droz, jr. is a physicist and has been an environmental activist for some 30 years. He has been a leading individual on four NY statewide issues (electrical energy, water extraction, water quality, and property taxes) and is currently working on similar NC issues (like electrical energy and sea level rise).He received undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree inphysics from Syracuse University. He has been a participating member of several environmental organizations (likethe Adirondack Council, Adirondack Wild, Protect, and the Sierra Club). [The science oriented views expressed inthis presentation may not necessarily reflect the political agenda of these organizations.] Due to his love of nature,he has a Summer lakefront cottage in the Adirondacks (NY).These areas of interest and expertise (science & environmentalism) have merged with his focus on energy matters,especially wind energy. John’s basic position is that we should be taking aggressive measures to solve our energyand pollution issues, but should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — which are primarilypromoted by those with vested financial interests in them.This slide presentation is copyrighted and is for personal use only. Any reproduction, quoting, referencing, or otheruse of this material is prohibited without the author’s express written consent. Such consent will usually be grantedfor the purpose of putting on an educational community presentation.All information is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. If errors are noted, please email John the scientificevidence of same and a correction will be made. For questions, comments or permission to use any material in this presentation, please email John at: aaprjohn@northnet.org © john droz, jr.

Science Under Assault

by John Droz

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 16

Statistics